One reform

[Roguish Lawyer]

OK, you have the power to make one reform to all or any part of the federal government. Could be firing someone, changing the structure of an organization, imposing or changing a rule, etc. But you can only do one thing -- no lists.

What would you do and what would that accomplish?

[Sigi]

Mandatory Military Service.

Any member of Congress or an Administration who sends men and women to war should have thier own sons and daughters on the front line.

[Peregrino]

Too easy! You're shooting over a baited field. Term Limits. FWIW, I've heard most of the arguments for and against. Despite lucid arguments about thwarting the obvious will of the people I still think they are a good idea. Anything to break the stranglehold incumbent power blocks have on the reigns of government. A more active political contest might also revitalize a jaded electorate and get more people to care about participating in the governing of their country. It might also put a stranglehold on the special interests. They won't be able to keep anybody in office long enough to build the relationships that create questionable politics. Anything that makes government less efficient (and eliminating incumbents with their power bases is guaranteed to do at least that) advances the causes of freedom (maybe a little naive but it sounds good). My .02 - Peregrino

[dedeppm]

I think that breaking up the electoral college would encourage candidates for the presidency to address national issues over local issues when making campaign promises. I mean, living in Ohio, it was great being fawned over and sucked up to by both parties in the last election, but Kerry and Bush weren't running for governor of Ohio- they were running for a position of national leadership.

It's almost like the people living in states that are solidly "red" or "blue" are punished for their loyalty to one party because they (and many of the issues they may care about) are taken for granted by one party and written off by the other.

The last problem is merely the principle on which the Electoral College was founded. I believe that Americans *are* responsible enough as citizens to choose their destiny without some sort of aristocratic check on our decisionmaking (although the EC has only voted out of sync with the people once, and that was during Reconstruction- still, it's the principle of the thing

my .02

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by dedeppm

I think that breaking up the electoral college would encourage candidates for the presidency...

BS...the electoral college exists for a perfectly good reason...it dilutes the power of the heavily populated states somewhat...the map of the current presidency illustrates why the concept of an electoral college is important...nope...the electoral college stays...don't mess with the Constitution....

Peregrino, shooting over a baited field is called an ambush...

personally, i would eliminate the Department of Education...

[aricbcool]

One thing that I think hurts this country is the amount of legislation that is passed every year. (roughly 14,000 bills submitted per year from 1947-2000)

Granted, some laws are very helpful to our society. On the other hand, I think many laws are old, outdated, or otherwise hurtful.

Therefore, I would add an amendment to the constitution requiring all laws to have sunset provisions of no longer than 5 years. (This would include all levels of legislature from city ordinances all the way to federal criminal law.)

IMHO, this would go a long way in cleaning up the complicated and enormous amount of laws that currently afflict this country.

Furthermore, it would force Congress to deal with many issues that they would rather ignore (i.e. Social Security).

Thirdly, it would hopefully calm the zealotry in which our esteemed "representatives" constantly create new laws that we citizens must follow.

(Hopping of the soap-box...)

Now, I don't know about everyone else, but I'd like to hear what RL would do...

Come on RL, you started this thread, let's see what you've got.

[hotntot]

These power people are out of touch with reality.Their retirement benifits,insurance,etc.are outlandish.How could they possibly relate to the average joe.A lot of these people have never even had a real job.A one term elected state or federal candidate basically has it made for life.Let them be on a regular diet of normal retirement programs and insurance benifits for retirees- it would change a lot of attitudes.

Free healthcare. Not sure how to get there but the benifits are obvious.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Free healthcare. Not sure how to get there but the benifits are obvious.

Ahh, more socialism and welfare, just what we need.

And who would pay for this?

TR

[Smokin Joe]

Federal Law Enforcement.

The alphabet soup becomes one organization.

There is to much redundancy and at the same time lack of enforcement or I should say lack of effective enforcement. The FBI, USM, DEA, ATF, DHS, all get rolled up into one agency. The agency as a whole has areas such as intel, inmate transport, narcotics, protection, security, terrorism, violent crime, interstate crime, etc. Do this to flush the system of all the politically motivated BS that palgues all the Federal Agencies.

The agency is result driven, there job is the catch and help the U.S. Attorney's convict bad guys thats it! Agents get bonuses for convictions NOT putting people in jail. No more sham time, get on the ball or get gone....and I don't mean shipped to the black hole of the agency I mean shit canned. Jobs aren't protected (except for Reservist and National Guardsmen) you want a federal retirement then catch and convict bad guys for 20 years. You want to sit on your ass and play office politics go run for Congress. You want to ignore a bad guy that your local LEO's keep telling you is a bad dude that needs some federal looking into go work for Wal-Mart as a greater. Where you can ignore responsiblity all day long.

[jatx]

Mandatory national service between the ages of 18 and 20, not necessarily in the military. Access to federal student loans contingent on honorable completion of committment.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by Sigi

Mandatory Military Service.

Any member of Congress or an Administration who sends men and women to war should have thier own sons and daughters on the front line.

1. How will mandatory military service accomplish this latter goal? This was not the case when we had a draft.

2. Notwithstanding Michael Moore's demagoguery, you are aware that Congressional families are actually overrepresented in combat service compared to American families as a whole?

[Bravo1-3]

I would appoint NDD as Secretary of Shooting People in the Face.

Seriously, I'd make a 1 strike you're out law for people selling illegal drugs.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by dedeppm

I think that breaking up the electoral college would encourage candidates for the presidency to address national issues over local issues when making campaign promises. I mean, living in Ohio, it was great being fawned over and sucked up to by both parties in the last election, but Kerry and Bush weren't running for governor of Ohio- they were running for a position of national leadership.

It's almost like the people living in states that are solidly "red" or "blue" are punished for their loyalty to one party because they (and many of the issues they may care about) are taken for granted by one party and written off by the other.

The last problem is merely the principle on which the Electoral College was founded. I believe that Americans *are* responsible enough as citizens to choose their destiny without some sort of aristocratic check on our decisionmaking (although the EC has only voted out of sync with the people once, and that was during Reconstruction- still, it's the principle of the thing

my .02

Regarding the 1876 election, Tilden not only won the popular vote, but should have won the electoral vote as well. The election was basically stolen by Republican-dominated election commissions in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana, who disqualified enough Democratic votes to give their states to Hayes. And even without the Electoral College, corrupt politicians can play around with the votes when certifying elections, as appears to have occurred in the Washington State 2004 gubernatorial election.

In 2000, the EC was "out of sync with the people". Unless you buy into Democratic conspiracy theories, Bush did win Florida, meaning he legitimately won the electoral vote while "losing" the popular vote. But it was far starker in 1888, where Cleveland "won" the popular vote 49% to 48% but lost the electoral vote 233 to 168. In 1824, the winner of a plurality of the popular vote (Jackson) lost the election, but he had also won the electoral vote. There, House politics "stole" Jackson's victory, not the Electoral College system.

In 53 contested elections since 1796, there have only been 4 where there was a dispute, and, as noted above, in only two was it a case of the Electoral College thwarting the popular will (1888 and 2000) and one where corrupt politicians misused the Electoral College to thwart the popular will (1876). Compared to the record in state elections and in various foreign democracies, that is an enviable track record.

Don't take me for granted

Regarding punishment for loyalty, the party which takes a state for granted suffers in the long run. In the post-World War Two era, no state has voted for the same party in every election.

A few are reliably red - Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and the two Dakotas went Dem only in '64; Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming only in '48 and '64.

The bluest of blue states are less firm. Massachusetts voted for Ike twice and Reagan twice. Hawaii and Rhode Island voted for Ike twice, Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84. Minnesota voted for Ike twice and Nixon in '72.

In the long run, the others are in play.

Arizona is an example: Arizona went for Truman in '48 but became reliably Republican thereafter. It went for favorite son Goldwater in LBJ's '64 landslide. But in 1992, Bush only won Arizona by 2%. In 1996, Clinton won Arizona.

Minnesota is another. Except for Nixon's '72 landslide, Minnesota has been a blue state since 1960 and was the only state carried by Mondale in '84. But Gore barely carried Minnesota (48% to 46%). Kerry, too (51% to 48%).

How about Howard Dean's Vermont? Democrat in the last four elections straight and home of the only avowed Socialist in Congress. But before 1992, Vermont went Democrat once, in 1964. Not once in the post-war era. Once, ever. The last time the Democrats won in Vermont was 1820, and then they were the Democratic-Republican Party, forerunner to both of today's main parties. Vermont and Maine were the only states to go against FDR in all of his victories.

Maine is another traditional GOP stronghold. Until 1992, Maine went Republican in every election since the GOP's founding in 1856 except 1912, 1964 and 1968. Since 1992, though, Maine has moved into the Democrat's column. It was one of the few states where Kerry did better than Gore.

In a number of states that were loyal Democrats for many recent elections, the trend has been in favor of the GOP. These include West Virginia, Iowa and Wisconsin. In other states that were loyal GOP bastions, the trend in recent elections has been toward the Democrats. These include California, Illinois, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado are all in play.

Just background

But all of this is just background. It indicates that the Electoral College system, with very few exceptions, works extremely well, and that states should not be taken for granted by the parties

But the main flaw is this statement: that "the principle on which the Electoral College was founded" was to be "some sort of aristocratic check on our decisionmaking." The Electoral College system is not designed to thwart the popular majority, but to protect smaller states from larger ones. It gives smaller states somewhat disproportionate representation to their population, meaning that they (and their citizens) cannot be as easily disregarded in putting together an electoral majority.

You say candidates for the presidency should "address national issues over local issues." That is fine as far as it goes, and I agree, but who decides what the national agenda is? If parties only have to compete for a national popular majority, they will concentrate their efforts on the major urban areas where they can get more bang for the buck.

In a straight popular vote contest, the election would be focused on and decided in the BosWash corridor and the California coast, and a few other major urban areas. No one will fawn over Ohio or New Hampshire or Iowa or Wisconsin. You will have a situation like in France, where Paris dominates everywhere else, or Georgia, where all roads lead to Atlanta.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by aricbcool

Now, I don't know about everyone else, but I'd like to hear what RL would do...

Come on RL, you started this thread, let's see what you've got.

I am thinking about it.